Skip to main content
Log in

Large- and small-scale effects of habitat structure on rates of predation: how percent coverage of seagrass affects rates of predation and siphon nipping on an infaunal bivalve

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Landscape ecology, predominantly a terrestrial discipline, considers the effect of large-scale (tens of meters to kilometers) spatial patterns of habitats on ecological processes such as competition, predation, and flow of energy. In this study, a landscape-ecology approach was applied to a marine soft-sediment environment to examine rates of predation and transfer of secondary production in and around vegetated habitats. Seagrass beds naturally occur in a variety of spatial configurations from patches 1–10s of meters across with interspersed unvegetated sediments (i.e., patchy coverage) to more continuous coverage with little or no bare sediment. I designed experiments to address how percent coverage of seagrass in a 100-m2 area of seafloor, and the spatial arrangement (degree of patchiness or fragmentation) of an equal area (100 m2) of vegetation affected predation (lethal) and siphon nipping (sublethal) intensity on an infaunal bivalve, Mercenaria mercenaria (hard clam). Measures of seagrass density and biomass with different percent coverage of seagrass were also made. When clams were placed in both the vegetated and unvegetated portions of the seafloor nearly twice as many clams were recovered live with 99% seagrass cover than with 23% seagrass cover, while survivorship was intermediate with 70% cover. Cropping of clam siphons from both the vegetated and unvegetated sediments was also affected by the amount of seagrass cover in a 100-m2 area of seafloor: mean adjusted siphon weights were approximately 76% heavier from the 99% seagrass cover treatment than from the 70% or 23% cover treatments. Survivorship of clams placed within an equal area of seagrass in very patchy, patchy, and continuous spatial configurations was 40% higher in the continuous seagrass treatment than in either of the two patchy treatments. This study demonstrates that transfer of secondary production in the form of predation and cropping on an infaunal organism is altered as the percent cover of seagrass changes. While large-scale changes in the amount and spatial patterning of vegetation may affect habitat utilization patterns and foraging HGLoopbehavior, increased seagrass density and biomass with increased percent coverage of seagrass limit any conclusions concerning predator foraging behavior and feeding success in response to patch shapes and sizes. Instead, local changes in seagrass characteristics provide the most compelling explanation for the observed results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrén H (1992) Corvid density and nest predation in relation to forest fragmentation: a landscape perspective. Ecology 73: 794–804

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrén H, Angelstam P, Lindström E, Widén P (1985) Differences in predation pressure in relation to habitat fragmentation: an experiment. Oikos 45: 273–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell SS, Hicks GRF (1991) Marine landscapes and faunal recruitment: a field test with seagrass and copepods. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 73: 61–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell SS, Hall MO, Fonseca MS (1994) Evaluation of faunal and floral attributes of seagrass beds in high and low energy regimes: a geographic comparison. In: Dyer KR, D'Elia C (eds) Changes in fluxes in estuaries: implications of science to management. Olson and Olson, London, in press

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundon JA, Kennedy VS (1982) Refuges for infaunal bivalves from blue crab, Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun), predation in Chesapeake Bay. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 65: 67–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Brittingham MC, Temple SA (1983) Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? BioScience 33: 31–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Coen LD, Heck KL Jr (1991) The interacting effects of siphon nipping and habitat on bivalve (Mercenaria mercenaria (L.)) growth in a subtropical seagrass (Halodule wrightii Aschers) meadow. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 145: 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Coen L, Heck KL, Abele LG (1981) Experiments on competition and predation among shrimps of seagrass meadows. Ecology 62: 1484–1493

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowder LB, Cooper WE (1982) Habitat structural complexity and the interaction between bluegills and their prey. Ecology 63: 1802–1813

    Google Scholar 

  • Currin BM, Reed JP, Miller JM (1984) Growth, production, food consumption, and mortality of juvenile spot and croaker: a comparison of tidal and nontidal nursery areas. Estuaries 7: 451–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson BJ (1991) Communities in a landscape: the influence of habitat heterogeneity on the interactions between species. Am Nat 138: 1105–1120

    Google Scholar 

  • Duarte CM, Sand-Jensen K (1990) Seagrass colonization: patch formation and patch growth in Cymodocea nodosa. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 65: 193–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca MS (1992) Restoring seagrass systems in the United States. In: Thayer GW (ed) Restoring the nation's marine environment. Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, MD, pp 79–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca MS, Zieman JC, Thayer GW, Fisher JS (1983) The role of current velocity in structuring eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) meadows. Est Coast Shelf Sci 17: 367–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca MS, Kenworthy WJ, Thayer GW (1988) Restoration and management of seagrass systems: a review. In: Hook DD et al. (eds). The Ecology and management of wetlands, vol. 2. Management, use and value of wetlands. Timber Press, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT (1990) Ecologically sustainable landscapes: the role of spatial configuration. In: Zonneveld IS, Forman RTT (eds) Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective. Springer New York, pp 261–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Godron M (1981) Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology, BioScience 31: 733–740

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin JF, Forman RTT (1987) Creating landscape patterns by forest cutting: ecological consequences and principles. Landscape Ecol 1: 5–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Gote RH, Gallagher EE, Scotts LE, Wilson KA (1981) Studies on decapod crustacea from the Indian River region of Florida. I. Community composition, structure, biomass and species-areal relationships of seagrass and drift algae-associated macrocrustaceans. Est Coast Shelf Sci 12: 485–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartog C den (1971) The dynamic aspect in the ecology of seagrass communities. Thalassia Jugos 7: 101–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck KL Jr, Thoman TA (1981) Experiments on predator-prey interactions in vegetated aquatic habitats. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 53: 125–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck KL Jr, Wetstone GS (1977) Habitat complexity and invertebrate species richness and abundance in tropical seagrass meadows. J Biogeogr 4: 135–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines AH, Haddon AM, Wiechert LA (1990) Guild structure and foraging impact of blue crabs and epibenthic fish in a subestuary of Chesapeake Bay. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 67: 105–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Irlandi EA, Peterson CH (1991) Modification of animal habitat by large plants: mechanisms by which seagrass influences clam growth. Oecologia 87: 307–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Naveh Z, Lieberman AS (1984) Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson WG (1979) An analysis of structural pattern in an eelgrass (Zostera marina) amphipod community. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 39: 231–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth RJ (1992) A perspective on plant-animal interactions in seagrasses: physical and biological determinants influencing plant and animal abundance. In: John DM, Hawkins SJ, Price JH (eds) Plant-animal interactions in the marine benthos (The Systematics Association Special Volume 46), Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 147–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth RJ, Heck KL Jr, Montfrans J van (1984) Faunal communities in seagrass beds: a review of the influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator-prey relationships. Estuaries 7: 339–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson CH (1982) Clam predation by whelks (Busycon spp.): experimental tests of the importance of prey size, prey density, and seagrass cover. Mar Biol 66: 159–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson CH, Quammen ML (1982) Siphon nipping: its importance to small fishes and its impact on growth of the bivalve Protothaca stamina. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 63: 249–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson CH, Skilleter GA (1994) Foraging of Macoma balthica on deposited versus suspended foods: the role of siphon-cropping fishes. Oecologia (in press)

  • Peterson CH, Summerson HC, Duncan PB (1984) The influence of seagrass cover on population structure and individual growth rate of a suspension-feeding bivalve, Mercenaria mercenaria. J Mar Res 42: 123–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Reise K (1978) Experiments on epibenthic predation in the Wadden Sea. Helgo Wiss Meeresunters 31: 51–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Skilleter GA, Peterson CH (1994) Foraging of Macoma balthica on deposited versus suspended foods: complex interactions between competition and cropping. Oecologia (in press)

  • Small MF, Hunter ML (1988) Forest fragmentation and avian nest predation in forested landscapes. Oecologia 76: 62–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Summerson HC, Peterson CH (1984) Role of predation in organizing benthic communities of a temperate-zone seagrass bed. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 15: 63–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland JP, Karlson RH (1977) Development and stability of the fouling community at Beaufort, North Carolina. Ecol Monogr 47: 425–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Thayer GW (ed) (1992) Restoring the nation's marine environment. Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Thayer GW, Kenworthy WJ, Fonseca MS (1984) The ecology of eelgrass meadows of the Atlantic coast: a community profile. US Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-84/02: 1–147

  • Trevallion A (1971) Studies on Tellina tenius da Costa, III. Aspects of general biology and energy flow. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 7: 95–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevallion A, Edwards RRC, Steele JH (1970) Dynamics of a benthic bivalve. In: Steele JH (ed) Marine food chains. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 285–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20: 171–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlas J de (1979) Secondary production by tail regeneration in a tidal flat population of lugworms (Arenicola marina) cropped by flatfish. Neth J Sea Res 13: 362–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodin SA (1982) Browsing: important in marine sedimentary environments? Spionid polychaete examples. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 60-35–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld IS, Forman RTT (eds) (1990) Changing landscapes: An ecological perspective. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Irlandi, E.A. Large- and small-scale effects of habitat structure on rates of predation: how percent coverage of seagrass affects rates of predation and siphon nipping on an infaunal bivalve. Oecologia 98, 176–183 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00341470

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00341470

Key words

Navigation